Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/14181519

Wind Protection Effects and Airflow Patterns in Outside Feedlots

Article  in  Journal of Animal Science · January 1997


DOI: 10.2527/1997.75126x · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

53 91

3 authors, including:

Terry L Mader J. B. Gaughan


University of Nebraska at Lincoln The University of Queensland
199 PUBLICATIONS   4,103 CITATIONS    174 PUBLICATIONS   1,991 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

This was an experiment i led while with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. the work was conducted at Mutdapilly Research Station, South East Qld. View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by J. B. Gaughan on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Wind protection effects and airflow patterns in outside feedlots
T. L. Mader, J. M. Dahlquist and J. B. Gaughan

J ANIM SCI 1997, 75:26-36.

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on
the World Wide Web at:
http://jas.fass.org/content/75/1/26

www.asas.org

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


Wind Protection Effects and Airflow Patterns in Outside Feedlots1

T. L. Mader*, J. M. Dahlquist†, and J. B. Gaughan‡

*Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Northeast Research and Extension Center,
Concord 68728; †University of Illinois, Orr Agricultural Research and Demonstration Center–Beef
Unit, Bayliss, IL 62314; and ‡Department of Animal Production, University of Queensland,
Gatton College, Gatton, Queensland, Australia 4343

ABSTRACT: Steers were finished in three different spring; P < .05). Feed:gain ratios followed a similar
sets of outside lots: 1 ) pens with overhead shelter on trend among seasons (summer and autumn > winter >
the north side; 2 ) pens south and southeast of a spring P < .05). As a percentage of BW, winter (2.21),
shelterbelt; and 3 ) pens with no shelter or windbreak. spring (2.19), and summer (2.18) DMI were less ( P <
In trials conducted over a 3-yr period with .05) than autumn (2.35) DMI. Wind velocity data
predominantly British and British × Continental indicated that greater air flow tends to be found on
crossbred yearlings, performance improvements due to mounds and less at the feedbunk in pens protected by
shelterbelts. In unprotected, unsheltered pens, the
providing shelter or wind protection in the winter
greatest airflow tends to be at the highest point in the
were not detected; however, in the summer, providing
pen (bunks and mounds). In Nebraska, benefits
wind protection or shelter resulted in decreased ( P < realized from feeding cattle in sheltered or protected
.10) cattle gains. Cattle fed in the unprotected area areas under average or slightly milder than average
had greater ( P < .05) fat thickness in the winter and winter weather conditions may be offset by lower
greater marbling scores in the winter ( P < .05) and performance experienced by cattle fed in those same
autumn ( P < .10) than cattle fed in protected areas. areas in the summer. In addition, fat deposition seems
When averaged across facilities, seasonal effects were to be enhanced in cattle exposed to moderate cold
detected for DMI (autumn > summer > winter > stress.

Key Words: Feedlots, Wind Protection, Steers, Shelter, Seasons, Environment

J. Anim. Sci. 1997. 75:26–36

Introduction conditions. Hoffman and Self (1970), Byron et al.


(1977), and Meiske (1992) reported results of com-
Fundamental physiological and metabolic effects of parisons of shelter types primarily during the summer
environmental stress and associated changes in feed and winter seasons; however, limited carcass data
intake, performance, and maintenance energy require- were reported in these studies, and cattle fed in some
ments of cattle have been clearly documented (NRC, of the no shelter areas were provided minimal wind
1981; Dantzer and Mormède, 1983; Fox et al., 1988; protection from nearby structures or fences.
Hicks et al., 1990a,b; Birkelo et al., 1991; Boyles and Effects of windbreak and windbreak porosity on
Riley, 1991). Methods to manage environmental leeward wind velocity have been studied (Moysey and
stress, primarily due to temperature, have been McPherson, 1966; Hagen and Skidmore, 1971);
assessed (Hahn, 1981; Morrison and Prokop, 1983; however, less is known regarding interactions of
Johnson, 1986); however, less information is available windbreaks and feedlot structures (e.g., mounds) on
regarding the effects of wind on augmenting cold air movement in pens.
stress (Ames and Insley, 1975) or minimizing the The objectives of these studies were to evaluate
effects of heat stress under outside feedlot feeding seasonal performance and carcass traits of British and
British × Continental crossbred yearling steers fed in
unprotected, unsheltered areas compared to steers fed
in areas with different degrees of wind protection
1Published as paper no. 10321, Journal Series, Nebraska Agric. provided and to assess airflow differences in protected
Res. Div., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln 68583-0908. and unprotected feedlot areas.
Received March 7, 1996.
Accepted September 4, 1996.

26

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IN OUTSIDE FEEDLOTS 27
Materials and Methods mately 3 m above the SP facility feedbunks. The
shelterbelt contained six tree rows and was approxi-
Feedlot Study mately 25 m wide. All pens had dirt surfaces,
contained mounds, and had concrete aprons extending
Trials at the University of Nebraska Northeast 3 m from the feedbunks into the pen. For each trial, a
Research and Extension Center, Concord, were con- minimum of 13 m2 of pen space and an average of .5 m
ducted over a 3-yr period using 1,064 yearling steers. of feedbunk space were provided for each steer. Dirt
Steers were finished in three different sets of outside surface maintenance was similar among pens. Excess
feedlot facilities (Figure 1): 1 ) pens with overhead manure was removed annually.
shelter on the north side of the lot ( OP) ; 2 ) pens Steers were predominantly British and British ×
south and southeast of a shelterbelt ( SP) ; and 3 ) Continental crossbred. Initial weights were the mean
pens with no shelter or windbreak to the north, west, of two weights taken over consecutive days. Gains and
and northwest ( NP) . Separate feeding trials were feed:gain ratios were based on final weight calculated
conducted each season of each year, with the exception from hot carcass weight adjusted to a common dress of
of autumn, in which trials were conducted only in the 62%. At the time of slaughter, hot carcass weight, fat
1st and 3rd yr. Within trials, steers were randomly thickness, marbling score, and yield grade were
assigned to pens in each feedlot facility. determined. Fat thickness was measured at a point 3/
Before trial initiation, cattle were vaccinated for 4 the lateral length of the longissimus muscle at the
infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, parainfluenza 3, and 12th rib. Longissimus muscle area was from the
clostridial infections (7-way) and implanted with 11th−12th rib and measured from a grid placed over
Synovex-S (Fort Dodge Animal Health, Overland the loin. Marbling score and yield grade were esti-
Park, KS) or Ralgro (Mallinckrodt Veterinary, mated by USDA officials.
Mundelein, IL). All steers within a trial received the For the respective seasons, weather data were
same implant. During each trial, steers were adjusted compiled for the months that most closely matched the
to a corn-based finishing diet (NE g = 1.41 Mcal/kg feeding period. Temperature, relative humidity,
DM) within a 28-d feeding period using four adapta- precipitation, and wind velocity data reported were
tion diets. Final diet monensin concentration averaged taken from a Sioux City, IA weather station (40 km
25 mg/kg DM. All diets were formulated to meet NRC east-northeast of the research site) as recorded and
requirements for protein, vitamins, and minerals. compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Mean starting dates and days on feed for the winter, Administration (NOAA) and the National Climatic
spring, and autumn trials were December 1 and 96, Data Center, Asheville, NC.
March 1 and 100, and mid-August and 85, respec- Wind Velocity Assessment. During a 2-mo period
tively. During the summer, mean starting date was (late October to late December) and a 1-mo (mid-
mid-June; however, due to differences in time required January to mid-February) period, readings were
for cattle to finish, steers were fed an average of 94, manually recorded from totalizing anemometers (Cat.
103, and 96 d in the OP, SP, and NP facilities, No. 5-349A Series, Belfort Instrument, Baltimore,
respectively. During the spring, summer, and autumn MD) spaced laterally in the SP and NP facilities with
feeding period, an average of four replicates (pens)/ three along the feedbunks ( AB) , two on mounds ( M) ,
facility were used within each trial. In the winter and three along the end of the pens opposite the
trials, three, three, and two replicates/facility were feedbunks ( OB) (Figure 1). Two anemometers were
used in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd yr, respectively. The placed in the OP facility at the M and OB. Readings
average number of steers/pen was nine. were recorded at 0900 and 1600 for the 2-mo period
The OP facility shelter (Figure 1 ) was enclosed on and at 0900, 1300, and 1600 for the 1-mo period. This
the north (concrete wall) and opened to the south. A allowed for period lengths within each 24-h period of 7
roof (6.1 m wide) covered the feed alley, feedbunks, and 17 h (2-mo period) and 3, 4, and 17 h (1-mo
and concrete apron. The shelter peak was 4.7 m high, period). Whenever the wind was from one direction at
25 m from the south end of the SP pens, and least 75% of the hours during any 3-, 4-, 7-, or
approximately level with the top of the SP feedbunks. 17-h period, data collected for that period were used.
The OP, SP, and NP pens were 43, 43, and 35 m long; Mean wind velocity was calculated at each anemome-
7.3, 8.5, and 9.0 m wide; and sloped away from the ter for wind from the west ( W ) , northwest (NW),
feedbunks 3, 4, and 5%, respectively. The north end of north ( N ) , northeast (NE), east ( E ) , southeast (SE),
the SP facility was 31 m south of the east-west wing of south ( S ) , and southwest (SW). The eight wind
an L-shaped shelterbelt. direction sectors were determined by an automated
The OP and SP pens sloped to the south. The NP weather station located within 1.8 km of the feedlot
pens sloped to the west. The NP facility was located on facilities.
the north side of the shelterbelt, near the crest of a Statistical Analysis. Data were analyzed using the
hill, and thus was exposed to winds from all directions GLM procedure of SAS (1987). In the feeding study,
except for partial exposure to the south wind and very the statistical model included season, trial, facility,
little exposure to the southwest wind. On average, the and season × facility. Pen was used as the experimen-
NP facility feedbunks were at an elevation approxi- tal unit. Even though season × facility interactions

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


28 MADER ET AL.

Figure 1. Feedlot facility layout and anemometer placement.

were not found to be significant ( P > .23), facility Wind velocity data were analyzed within wind
differences within season were of interest; therefore, direction using the GLM procedure of SAS (1987).
data were also analyzed within season, which included The statistical model included facility, anemometer
trial, facility, and trial × facility in the statistical location in pens (AB, M, and OB) within facility, and
model. Least squares means are reported. Separation lateral placement (left, center, and right) of anemom-
of means were governed by protected level of sig- eters within facility. Pre-planned wind velocity com-
nificance at the alpha level reported. parisons included AB vs M and AB vs OB within both

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IN OUTSIDE FEEDLOTS 29
Table 1. Effect of facility and season on feedlot steer performance (3-yr summary) a

Facilityb
Variable OP SP NP SEM Season meanc
Initial wt, kg
Winter 370.4 369.8 370.6 1.4 372.0 ± 3.7f
Spring 333.5 332.9 334.1 1.1 336.7 ± 3.0e
Summer 397.8 397.7 398.4 2.7 397.0 ± 3.1g
Autumn 392.2 394.8 389.8 2.0 393.7 ± 3.7g
Facility mean 374.8 375.2 374.5 2.9
ADG, kg
Winter 1.40 1.44 1.47 .03 1.42 ± .02e
Spring 1.51 1.50 1.47 .02 1.50 ± .02f
Summer 1.37i 1.34i 1.48j .04 1.40 ± .02e
Autumn 1.40 1.42 1.42 .04 1.44 ± .02ef
Facility mean 1.43 1.43 1.46 .02
Daily DMI, kg
Winter 9.68 9.50 9.77 .10 9.68 ± .11f
Spring 9.02 8.88 8.94 .10 8.97 ± .09e
Summer 10.16 10.00 10.38 .15 10.15 ± .10g
Autumn 10.53 10.60 10.48 .18 10.65 ± .11h
Facility mean 9.88 9.78 9.93 .09
DMI, % of BW
Winter 2.22 2.17 2.22 .02 2.21 ± .02e
Spring 2.21 2.18 2.20 .02 2.19 ± .02e
Summer 2.20 2.14 2.21 .03 2.18 ± .02e
Autumn 2.33 2.33 2.33 .04 2.35 ± .02f
Facility mean 2.24 2.21 2.24 .02
Feed/gain
Winter 6.97 6.66 6.77 .13 6.90 ± .12f
Spring 5.99 5.93 6.10 .09 6.01 ± .10e
Summer 7.43 7.52 7.04 .19 7.32 ± .10g
Autumn 7.58 7.52 7.39 .24 7.45 ± .12g
Facility mean 6.99 6.92 6.85 .10
Final wt, kgd
Winter 504.1 505.6 508.5 3.4 506.1 ± 4.2f
Spring 484.4 482.8 481.2 2.6 484.8 ± 3.4e
Summer 526.3k 534.5kl 540.3l 3.4 531.9 ± 3.5g
Autumn 510.5 514.6 510.4 3.7 513.8 ± 4.2f
Facility mean 507.1 510.0 510.3 3.3
aLeast squares means.
bOP = overhead shelter enclosed on the north side; SP = shelterbelt to north and northwest; NP = no
wind protection.
cn = 24 for winter; n = 36 for spring; n = 33 for summer; n = 27 for autumn.
dDetermined from hot carcass weight divided by .62.
e,f,g,hSeasonal means within a column bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .05).
i,jFacility means within a row bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .10).
k,lFacility means within a row bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .05).

facilities; E vs W end of the SP facility; and N vs S end and be less efficient in feed conversion, which are
of the NP facility. Least squares means were reported. indicators of greater heat load (NRC, 1981), than
cattle fed in the NP facility. Within the spring and
autumn feeding periods, average daily gain, feed
Results and Discussion intake, and feed:gain ratio among pens of steers fed in
the different facilities were similar, possibly indicating
In the feeding study, no differences in performance that steers were exposed to minimal environmental
were found (Table 1 ) among facilities within season, stress during these transitional seasons. Over all
except for the summer period. In the summer, seasons, no effects in performance were found due to
compared to steers fed in the NP facility, steers fed in the main effect of facility; however, when averaged
the OP and SP facilities had lower ( P < .10) daily across facilities, seasonal effects ( P < .05) were found
gains and steers fed in the OP facility had lower ( P < for all performance variables. Steers fed in the spring
.05) final weights. Also, in the summer, cattle fed in gained faster than steers fed in either the winter or
the OP and SP facility tended to have lower intakes summer season.

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


30 MADER ET AL.

Seasonal effects were detected for daily DMI grass and the plane of nutrition is low during the last
(autumn > summer > winter > spring). A trend portion of the grazing period. Cattle started in the
similar to that of DMI was found for feed:gain ratio winter could be long yearlings (> 18 mo old) or fall-
(summer and autumn > winter > spring). When DMI born calves born the previous year. Facility effects
was adjusted for BW (DMI as a percentage of BW), would be less likely observed in the winter with the
autumn values were greater than those found in other older cattle. However, exact age of cattle was not
seasons. Properly designed facilities should moderate determined in the present study.
seasonal intake differences associated with climate During the winter (Table 2), steers fed in the NP
changes; however, no season × facility interaction was facility had greater ( P < .05) fat thickness and
found for daily DMI or DMI as a percentage of BW. marbling score than steers fed in the OP and SP
Pusillo et al. (1991) indicated that in the latter stages facilities. Greater quality grade ( P < .05) and yield
of the feeding period, daily DMI for cattle exposed to grade ( P < .10) was also noted in the winter for steers
Midwestern climatic conditions are relatively un- fed in the NP facility compared to steers fed in the SP
affected by the presence or absence of shelter. facility. During the autumn, facility effects were found
The effects of providing overhead shelter for finish- (NP > OP and SP) for marbling score ( P < .10) and
ing cattle in Iowa have generally been found to be quality grade ( P < .05). Steers fed during the summer
positive during summer (Leu et al., 1977) and winter in the NP facility had a greater ( P < .10) quality
(Hoffman and Self, 1970; Leu et al., 1977) seasons, grade than steers fed in the SP facility. When
compared with cattle fed in unsheltered lots with averaged across seasons, facility effects ( P < .05) were
board fences as windbreaks. However, compared with detected for fat thickness (NP > SP) as well as
providing no shelter or wind protection, the benefits marbling score and quality grade (NP > OP and SP).
derived from the use of other forms of wind protection, When averaged across facilities, seasonal effects ( P <
such as fences or a shelterbelt, have not always been .05) were found for fat thickness (winter and spring >
positive. Bond and Laster (1974) found that cattle fed autumn > summer), marbling score (winter > spring
high-roughage diets with access to wind protection and summer; autumn > spring), and quality grade
during winter had lower gains, spent nearly 50% of (winter > spring and summer). Yield grades were the
the time standing near the windbreak, spent 4% less lowest in the summer and differed ( P < .05) from
time at feedbunks, and consumed 4 to 18% less feed. yield grades found in other seasons.
In Wyoming studies, Russell and Hixon (1987) also Lower heat stress (summer) and greater cold stress
reported that gains of calves were slightly less when (winter) seem to be conducive to fat deposition under
windbreaks were provided, and that in severe weather ad libitum feedlot feeding conditions for cattle fed in
calves would feed quickly and return to shelter. When unprotected, unsheltered areas. The animal’s priority
designing facilities that provide winter wind protec- for depositing fat in the winter would seem to be high,
tion, the importance of protecting both feedbunks and and a mechanism for providing body insulation in
cattle should not be overlooked. response to cold stress. Fuller et al. (1974) reported
For cattle that were fed in a relatively unprotected that under cold stress, nutrients are diverted from
environment, Hicks et al. (1990b) reported that synthetic processes to heat production in swine.
intakes, within a given weight group, generally However, Curtis (1981) suggested that during periods
peaked in the late fall and decreased to a low point of cold stress under ad libitum feeding conditions, feed
around February, although a summer decline in needed for both heat production and synthetic
intake was also noted. Intakes as a percentage of BW processes would typically not be limited. Thus, any
were very similar in the summer (2.18), winter resultant subcutaneous fat deposits that increase
(2.21), and spring (2.19) but greater ( P < .10) in the tissue insulation would be dependent on energy intake
autumn (2.35). Although not reported, calculated exceeding maintenance energy requirements.
intakes for steers (Hicks et al., 1990b), as a In other swine studies, increased backfat weight,
percentage of mean BW, tended to be greater in the backfat thickness, and(or) total carcass fat has been
August through October period (2.23) relative to reported in growing and finishing pigs subjected to
other 3-mo periods (2.16 to 2.17). A similar trend was decreasing or low environmental temperatures
found for heifers (Hicks et al., 1990a). In contrast, (Verstegen et al., 1982; Le Dividich et al., 1987);
Pusillo et al. (1991) reported the lowest intakes for however, effects of cold stress on backfat deposition in
cattle started in the fall (November), although exact swine are not always observed (Stahly et al., 1979;
age or initial weight were not reported for respective Rinaldo and Le Dividich, 1991). The diversion of
starting dates. nutrients for synthesis of and deposition of fat,
In the present study, greater DMI, as a percentage primarily external fat for insulation, would be a
of BW, observed in the fall may be due to the fact that mechanism for livestock to prepare for and adapt to
cattle received during August through October tend to cold stress. Altered tissue insulation, including
be older yearlings, and(or) to the fact that cattle have changes in skin and subcutaneous fat, has been noted
compensatory intake ability if they are coming off for cattle exposed to cold stress (Young, 1985).

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IN OUTSIDE FEEDLOTS 31
Table 2. Effect of facility and season on feedlot
steer carcass characteristics (3-yr summary)a

Facilityb
Variable OP SP NP SEM Season meanc
Fat thickness, cm
Winter 1.38f 1.37f 1.62g .06 1.43 ± .04j
Spring 1.40 1.44 1.50 .04 1.45 ± .03j
Summer 1.09 1.03 1.09 .05 1.07 ± .03h
Autumn 1.29 1.15 1.24 .06 1.23 ± .04i
Facility mean 1.29fg 1.24f 1.35g .03
Marbling scored
Winter 5.54f 5.45f 5.82g .08 5.59 ± .07j
Spring 5.41 5.37 5.38 .07 5.36 ± .05h
Summer 5.35 5.30 5.55 .09 5.39 ± .06hi
Autumn 5.41k 5.41k 5.67l .09 5.54 ± .07ij
Facility mean 5.42f 5.38f 5.60g .05
Quality gradee
Winter 7.20fg 7.13f 7.30g .04 7.20 ± .03i
Spring 7.13 7.12 7.11 .03 7.11 ± .02h
Summer 7.10kl 7.06k 7.18l .04 7.11 ± .02h
Autumn 7.08f 7.06f 7.24g .04 7.16 ± .03hi
Facility mean 7.13f 7.09f 7.21g .02
Yield grade
Winter 2.47kl 2.38k 2.64l .08 2.48 ± .05i
Spring 2.50 2.44 2.57 .06 2.51 ± .04i
Summer 2.18 2.21 2.27 .07 2.21 ± .04h
Autumn 2.44 2.52 2.45 .10 2.48 ± .05i
Facility mean 2.40 2.39 2.47 .04
aLeast squares means.
bOP = overhead shelter enclosed on the north side; SP = shelterbelt to north and northwest; NP = no
wind protection.
cn = 24 for winter; n = 36 for spring; n = 33 for summer; n = 27 for autumn.
d4.5 = average slight; 5.5 = average small.
e6.5 = average select; 7.5 = average choice.
f,gFacility means within a row bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .05).
h,i,jSeasonal means within a column bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .05).
k,lFacility means within a row bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .10).

During these trials, winter and spring temperatures ments are taken (Hagen and Skidmore, 1971). In
were 2 to 3C° above normal (30-yr average), whereas general, for windbreak porosities up to 60%, wind
summer and autumn temperatures tended to be velocity reductions of 50% or more can be found at a
slightly below normal; relative humidity followed an leeward distance from the windbreak that is 10 times
opposite pattern (Table 3). Precipitation was lower in the windbreak height. On the basis of wind data from
the winter but higher than normal in the spring and the N and NW, wind velocity was reduced approxi-
autumn. Under these climatic conditions, winter mately 50% (SP vs NP) in the SP facility. However,
performance does not seem to be impaired when cattle benefits of that wind protection did not enhance cattle
were fed in unprotected, unsheltered areas, but performance in the winter and contributed to reduc-
summer gains were decreased when cattle were fed in tions in gain in the summer.
protected areas. Wind velocity was greater ( P < .10) on the mounds
As would be expected, winds from the W, NW, and (vs AB) for the NW wind in both facilities (Figures 3
N were reduced ( P < .10) in velocity in the SP facility and 4 ) and for the W and E wind in the SP facility. In
compared to the NP facility (Figure 2); only the SW the SP facility, W, NW, NE, and E winds were lowest
wind was reduced ( P < .10) in the NP facility as a ( P < .10) near the shelterbelt (AB vs OB). In the NP
result of the shelterbelt. No differences in wind facility, only the SW wind was lower ( P < .10) on the
velocity due to facility were detected for wind from the mounds than AB. Wind velocity was lower ( P < .10)
NE, E, SE, and S, although larger SEM were OB (vs AB) for the S wind in both facilities and for
associated with wind velocity from the SE and S. the E and SW wind in the NP facility. In the SP
Reduction in wind velocity due to a windbreak is facility, the shelterbelt numerically reduced wind
largely dependent on windbreak porosity; however, velocity AB in seven out of eight directions when
relative wind velocity reductions vary depending on compared to wind velocity on the mounds, whereas in
the distance from the windbreak at which measure- the NP facility, fewer differences in wind velocity were

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


32 MADER ET AL.

Table 3. Mean climatic conditions for 3-yr feedlot studya

Winter Spring Summer Autumn


Item Actual Normal Actual Normal Actual Normal Actual Normal
Temperatures, °C
Mean daily average −4.2 ( −6.2) 11.6 (9.1) 22.3 (22.9) 9.2 (10.6)
Days MXDT > 32.2b .0 (.0) 1.0 (.5) 5.1 (7.8) .4 (.6)
Days MXDT < 0b 12.9 (16.5) .3 (2.0) .0 (.0) 2.6 (1.3)
Days MNDT < 0b 28.9 (29.3) 8.8 (10.6) .0 (.0) 11.1 (9.9)
Days MNDT < −17.8b 4.3 (7.2) .0 (.3) .0 (.0) .4 (.2)
Relative humidity, %
1200 66.0 (69.0) 54.3 (56.7) 60.0 (59.0) 63.0 (59.0)
1800 67.2 (70.7) 51.7 (53.3) 57.3 (55.3) 65.2 (60.3)
Total precipitation, cm 3.3 (5.8) 27.9 (18.9) 21.9 (26.7) 19.1 (13.1)
Total snow, cm 27.2 (46.3) 22.0 (24.2) .0 (.0) 14.2 (10.4)
Mean wind velocity, m/s 5.35 (5.02) 5.69 (5.60) 4.51 (4.34) 4.85 (4.69)
Predominant wind direction NW (NW) NW (NW) SE (SE) SE (SE)
aData shown are the average of the monthly means for the months that most closely matched the feeding period. Precipitation and snow
values are a sum of the three monthly means. Data in parentheses represent long-term means.
bCumulative number of days the maximum (MXDT) or minimum (MNDT) daily temperature was above or below the designated
temperature.

Figure 2. Wind velocities (mean ± SE) north and south of the shelterbelt.

found among locations, although wind velocity tended tended to be areas of greatest wind velocity and areas
to be lowest OB and greatest either on mounds or AB. farthest from the bunks had the least air movement.
In general, greatest wind velocities tended to be on In all directions but the NW, winds were numeri-
the mounds and the lowest wind velocities or least air cally greater on the east end of the SP facility than on
movement tended to be near the bunks, in the feedlot the west end (Figure 5). The N and NE winds were
south of the shelterbelt. In unsheltered, unprotected significantly greater and the NW wind was signifi-
feedlots, the area near the mounds or the bunks cantly less. In general, winds, regardless of direction,

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IN OUTSIDE FEEDLOTS 33

Figure 3. Wind velocities (mean ± SE) south of the shelterbelt in the SP facility. Within a wind direction, bars with
a dagger differ from bar AB (P < .10).

Figure 4. Wind velocities (mean ± SE) north of the shelterbelt in the NP facility. Within a wind direction, bars with
a dagger differ from bar AB (P < .10).

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


34 MADER ET AL.

Figure 5. Wind velocity (mean ± SE) at west and east ends of facility south of the shelterbelt (SP).

Figure 6. Wind velocity (mean ± SE) at south and north ends of facility north of the shelterbelt (NP).

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IN OUTSIDE FEEDLOTS 35
tended to be reduced in velocity on the west end of the moderate cold stress conditions and ad libitum access
facility (nearer the center of the sheltered area) when to feed, increased fat deposition should contribute to
compared to the more open east end. Based on four minimizing the impact of cold stress. Providing
recent years of hourly observations at this location, shelterbelts for cattle may provide protection against
prevailing winds in the winter are from the N or NW cold stress in the winter; however, shelterbelts may
approximately 40% of the time and in the summer are have adverse effects on cattle performance in the
from the S and SE a similar percentage of the time. summer. Increased air flow across mounds may
Because maintaining air movement is crucial in the alleviate some detrimental summer effects.
summer, a straight line (vs L-shaped) shelterbelt
seems to be more desirable, thus possibly minimizing
the reduction in wind velocity that may be associated Literature Cited
with the L-shaped protected area.
In the NP facility, wind velocity tended to be Ames, D. R., and L. W. Insley. 1975. Wind-chill effect for cattle and
greatest away from the shelterbelt (north end of the sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 40:161.
feedlot), regardless of direction (Figure 6). Even Birkelo, C. P., D. E. Johnson, and H. P. Phetteplace. 1991. Main-
when the wind was directly from the north, velocities tenance requirements of beef cattle as affected by season on
were lower ( P < .10) at locations nearest the different planes of nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 69:1214.
Bond, T. E., and D. B. Laster. 1974. Influence of windbreaks on
shelterbelt, although no wind velocity differences
feedlot cattle in the Midwest. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 17:
between the ends of this facility were detected for 505.
winds from the east and west. Boyles, S. L., and J. G. Riley. 1991. Feedlot performance of Brahman
Wind velocity data were collected on only one × Angus versus Angus steers during cold weather. J. Anim. Sci.
mound and OB site in the OP facility (Figure 1). 69:2677.
Wind velocities (m/s) on the mound were 3.58, 4.40, Byron, M. L., M. P. Hoffman, and H. L. Self. 1977. Comparison of
confinement, shelter and no shelter for finishing yearling
2.90, 2.52, 4.42, 4.96, 3.30, and 2.87, and OB wind
steers. J. Anim. Sci. 44:717.
velocities were 3.06, 4.75, 3.87, 3.24, 4.47, 5.87, 4.23, Curtis, S. E. 1981. Environmental management in animal agricul-
and 3.50 from the W, NW, N, NE, E, SE, S, and SW ture. Animal Environment Services, Mahomet, IL.
directions, respectively. In general, wind velocities in Dantzer, R., and P. Mormède. 1983. Stress in farm animals: A need
the OP facility were closer to those recorded in the SP for reevaluation. J. Anim. Sci. 57:6.
facility than to those recorded in the NP facility. When Fox, D. G., C. J. Sniffen, and J. D. O’Connor. 1988. Adjusting
compared with SP, wind velocities in the OP facility nutrient requirements of beef cattle for animal and environ-
mental variations. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1475.
on the mound were lower in all but the NW and N Fuller, M. F., W.R.H. Duncan, and A. W. Boyne. 1974. Effects of
directions, whereas wind velocities OB in the OP environmental temperature on the degree of unsaturation of
facility were greater than SP wind velocities in all but depot fats of pigs given different amounts of food. J. Sci. Food
the E and W directions. The relatively high wind Agric. 25:205.
velocities OB in the OP facility would be indicative of Hagen, L. I., and E. L. Skidmore. 1971. Turbulent velocity fluctua-
the lack of influence of the shelter (approximately 10 tions and vertical flow as affected by windbreak porosity.
Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 14:634.
times in height from the anemometer). The anemome-
Hahn, G. L. 1981. Housing and management to reduce climatic
ters on the mound in the OP facility were a distance impacts on livestock. J. Anim. Sci. 52:175.
from the shelter that was four times the height of the Hicks, R. B., F. N. Owens, D. R. Gill, J. W. Oltjen, and R. P. Lake.
shelter. In the SP facility, the M and OB anemometers 1990a. Daily dry matter intake by feedlot cattle: Influence of
were south of the shelterbelt approximately five and breed and gender. J. Anim. Sci. 68:245.
seven times the height of the shelterbelt, respectively. Hicks, R. B., F. N. Owens, D. R. Gill, J. W. Oltjen, and R. P. Lake.
In summer, yearling steers fed in OP and SP 1990b. Dry matter intake by feedlot beef steers: Influence of
initial weight, time on feed and season of year received in yard.
facilities had lower gain than steers fed in NP facility.
J. Anim. Sci. 68:254.
Steers fed in OP and SP facilities also tended to have Hoffmann, M. P., and H. L. Self. 1970. Shelter and feedlot surface
lower DMI and be less efficient in feed conversion. In effects on performance of yearling steers. J. Anim. Sci. 31:967.
general, lower wind velocities, contributing to less Johnson, D. E. 1986. Climatic stress and production efficiency. In:
evaporative cooling, greater heat load, and greater G. P. Moberg (Ed.) Limiting the Effects of Stress on Cattle. p
maintenance requirements (NRC, 1981), most likely 17. Western Regional Research Publication #009 and Utah
resulted in the lower gain of steers fed in the OP and Agric. Exp. Sta. Research Bull. 512. Utah State Univ., Logan.
Le Dividich, J., J. Noblet, and T. Bikawa. 1987. Effect of environ-
SP facilities. In this study, limited benefits were found mental temperature and dietary energy concentration on the
to providing winter wind protection for yearling Bos performance and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing
taurus steers; however, Bos indicus cattle breeds and pigs fed to equal rate of gain. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:235.
younger, unacclimatized or stressed cattle may benefit Leu, B. M., M. P. Hoffmann, and H. L. Self. 1977. Comparison of
from similar protection. confinement, shelter and no shelter for finishing yearling
steers. J. Anim. Sci. 44:717.
Meiske, J. C. 1992. Comparisons of housing systems for feedlot
cattle. In: Winter Environment Beef Cattle Production Symp. p
Implications 43. Dept. of Anim. Sci., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.
Morrison, S. R., and M. Prokop. 1983. Beef cattle response to air
Cattle fed in outside unprotected areas may be temperature: Effect of body weight and ration composition.
adversely affected by cold stress. However, under Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 26:893.

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


36 MADER ET AL.
Moysey, E. B., and F. B. McPherson. 1966. Effect of porosity on SAS. 1987. SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers (Version 6
performance of windbreaks. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 9:74. Ed.). SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
NRC. 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Stahly, T. S., G. L. Cromwell, and M. P. Aviotti. 1979. The effect of
Domestic Animals. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. environmental temperature and dietary lysine source and level
Pusillo, G. M., M. P. Hoffman, and H. L. Self. 1991. Effects of on the performance and carcass characteristics of growing
placing cattle on feed at two-month intervals and housing on swine. J. Anim. Sci. 49:1242.
feedlot performance and carcass grades. J. Anim. Sci. 69:443.
Verstegen, M.W.A., H. A. Brandsma, and G. Mateman. 1982. Feed
Rinaldo, D., and J. Le Dividich. 1991. Assessment of optimal tem-
perature for performance and chemical body composition of requirement of growing pigs at low environmental tempera-
growing pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 29:61. tures. J. Anim. Sci. 55:88.
Russell, W. C., and D. L. Hixon. 1987. The effects of windbreaks, Young, B. A. 1985. Physiological responses and adaptations of cattle.
nutritional level and zeranol implant on winter gains of steer In: M. K. Yousef (Ed.) Stress Physiology in Livestock. Vol. II.
calves. J. Anim. Sci. 65 (Suppl. 1):228(Abstr.). Ungulates. p 101. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


Citations This article has been cited by 10 HighWire-hosted articles:
http://jas.fass.org/content/75/1/26#otherarticles

Downloaded from jas.fass.org by guest on July 13, 2011


View publication stats

S-ar putea să vă placă și